Monday, January 16, 2012

Canada's
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, recently released a note entitled
"Renewing the Canada Health Transfer:
Implications for Federal and Provincial-Territorial Fiscal Sustainability". In this note, the PBO
analyzes the Government of Canada's (aka Harper Government's) December 2011
announcment that the Canada Health Transfer (CHT) would continue to grow at 6
percent annualy until 2016 - 2017 and then starting in 2017 - 2018, the CHT
would grow in line with the three year moving average of nominal GDP growth
(the escalator), guaranteeing a minimum of 3 percent per year until the CHT is
reviewed in 2024. While all of these dates seem very far in the future,
this paper looks at how these changes will impact provincial-territorial
budgets. Coincidentally (or not), these changes just happen to be taking
place within the exact time frame that baby boomers will be availing themselves
of more health care system resources.

Let's
digress for a moment. The much-abused Canada Health Act (CHA) states that
its primary objective is:

"...to
protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of
Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial
or other barriers."

The
CHA establishes the criteria that Canada's provinces and territories must
fulfill in order to receive the full federal Canada Health Transfer, thereby
ensuring that all eligible residents of Canada have "...reasonable access
to insured health services on a prepaid basis, without direct charges at the
point of service for such services". In other words, right across
the country, Canadians are to have universal access to medical services and
that these services are portable across provincial boundaries should residents
move from one jurisdiction to another. Provincial health care plans are
to cover all services offered by hospitals and physicians and that these
services are to be offered without extra-billing or additional user charges. Should
a jurisdiction allow extra billing, that amount will be deducted from the
federal cash transfer. For example, from the passing of the CHA in April
of 1984 to March 2010, a total of $9,159,619 has been deducted from federal
cash contributions due to extra billing, an extremely small amount considering
the size of transfers over the past 26 years. In 2011 - 2012, the Canada
Health Transfer is projected to reach $27 billion, rising to over $30 billion in 2013
- 2014. Provinces also receive additional Canada Health Transfer support
through tax transfers that amount to $13.6 billion in 2011 - 2012. In
case you were interested, here is a history of Canada's health care
funding.

Back
to the PBO's note.

To
put the following discussion into perspective, I'd like to take a brief look at
the history of Canada's annual GDP growth rate
since 1980:

You
will notice right away that Canada's economy grew at an annual rate of 6
percent or greater for only very short periods of time over the last 32
years and averaged roughly 3 percent over the three decades. As shown
here, over the past 10 years, Canada's annual GDP growth only reached 4 percent
on 2 occasions and then only briefly:

From
this data, we can quite clearly see that it is highly unlikely that, once 2017
- 2018 rolls around and the CHT transfers are linked to nominal GDP growth
rate, the Feds will ever have to increase the transfers by more than 3 percent.
Please keep these graphs in mind when reading the remainder of the PBO
note.

As I
noted above, once 2017 - 2018 rolls around, the size of the CHT transfers are
linked to the rolling three year average of the growth level of Canada's
economy. The PBO rather optimistically predicts that nominal GDP will
grow by an average of 3.7 percent over the period from 2017 to 2024 which
corresponds to a 3.9 percent three year rolling average. This is quite a
bit higher than the historical norm as I noted above. This means that the
PBO projects that the CHT transfers will grow on average by 3.9 percent
annually from 2017 - 2018 to 2024 - 2025. This is significantly lower
than the PBO's projected 5.1 percent growth rate in provincial health care
spending over the same period. For the purposes of their simulation, the
PBO also projects that the same CHT transfer growth rate will continue beyond
2024 - 2025 and that it will be maintained indefinitely at this level. Once
again, this is significantly lower than the PBO's projected 5.3 percent growth
rate in provincial health care spending over the same time period.

Now,
let's look at two scenarios; first, the share of federal CHT funding as a
percentage of total provincial health care funding under the current 6 percent
escalator followed by the federal share of CHT funding as a percentage of total
health care funding under the new, GDP-linked funding arrangement:

1.)
Current 6 percent escalator: The federal CHT was projected to average
21.6 percent of provincial health care spending between 2011 - 2012 and 2035 -
2036, increasing to 26.8 percent over the next 25 years and increasing again to
38.1 percent of funding over the final 25 years as provincial spending on
health care declined due to the "departure" of the beloved baby
boomers.

2.)
New GDP-linked escalator: The federal CHT is projected to decrease from
its current level of 20.4 percent of provincial health care spending to an
average of 18.6 percent between now and 2035 - 2036, decreasing further to 13.8
percent over the next 25 years and decreasing again to 11.9 percent over the
final 25 years of the simulation.

Here
is a graph showing how the two escalators impact the Federal share of
provincial health care spending:

To
put all of these numbers into context, over the period from 1968 - 1969
to 1976 - 1977, federal health transfers amount to an average of 36.1 percent
of provincial health care spending as shown here:

These
changes will have a marked impact on provincial treasuries since an increasing
portion of the burden of providing health services will fall on their already
overly-indebted shoulders. Provincial program spending (including health
care), under the new scenario, is expected to increase from 17.3 percent of GDP
to 23.9 percent of GDP by 2081 - 2082 as CHT transfers from the federal
government decline.

Here
is a graph showing how the consolidated provincial-territorial debt (in blue)
and federal debt (in red) will rise as a percentage of GDP to 2081 - 2082 under
the new CHT transfer scenario:

Notice
that the federal net debt-to-GDP ratio actually declines over the six decade
period but, in sharp contrast, the provincial debt-to-GDP ratio rises from 20
percent in 2010 - 2011 to 125 percent in 2050 - 2051 and to an astronomic 480
percent by 2081 - 2082. As a result of the changes to the CHT transfers,
growth in provincial debt is projected to be higher than economic growth, an
unsustainable situation. While I realize that projections 60 years out
have a very low chance of occurring, it is important to have someone like Mr.
Page look well beyond the four year election cycle horizon that our politicians
are most comfortable with. It is just that short sightedness that has
gotten us into this mess.

Basically, the federal government is transferring its debt to the provinces. As a taxpayer, the most offensive part of this scheme is
that the level of federal taxation will not drop to meet the lower level of
CHT transfers. This means that, as provinces cope with rising debt levels, Canadian
taxpayers will most likely suffer as provincial tax rates rise in concert with
increased debt. No matter which level of government experiences increased debt levels, it is the individual tax payer that will
bear the load, that is, unless Canada's health care system suddenly becomes a
great deal more efficient and is able to deliver more effective services for
less money, a highly unlikely scenario. But, I guess as long as the Federal government's books look
good, that's all that really matters...to them.

12 comments:

Thanks. Yes, I have a bias. I don't like politicians who say one thing during an election and then do something else once the votes have been cast and they have a majority. That goes for the Liberals, NDP and Conservatives.

How do we fix the problems of the world? Reduce government waste. In the case of Canada, we need look no further than the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on G8/G20 elites for 2 days of meetings. That money would have been far better spent on critical programs like health care. Unfortunately, both provincial and federal governments would rather waste money on unnecessary programs (including their own pensions) than make the really tough decisions that are necessary to bring down both debt and deficit. The Harper government's decision on CHT is just moving the debt load from one level of government to another and fixing NOTHING!

By 2025 the federal portion of healthcare funding will drop from about 20% to 18.6%; I am guessing this is assuming GDP growth averages to about 3%? So if growth is closer to the 4% this might be higher?

Let's just ignore the 2085 projections for now; this deal expires by 2025. I feel no need right now to elevate my blood pressure about something that will be brought up again 4 more times before 2085!

Personally; I am very happy with this deal. This deal:1. reduces the federal portion of funding over time (I am a firm believer that provinces are more efficient at running programs. Look at CDN provincial school systems compared to US school system (ex: no child left behind policies).)

2. gives the provinces more authority to administer their own programs. (this allows provinces to try better alternatives compared to federal one-size-fits-all strategies (ex: compare the social demographic differences of quebec and alberta).

3. all adjustments and changes are quite slow over time (this will allow the provinces to make adjustments to thier 5 year budget cycles).

What are you thinking APJ? I understand you are probably more of a federalist compared to myself?

Part of my concern about Canada's health care system is the highly variable provincial demographic distribution. The Atlantic provinces tend to have a much older population, meaning that they will suffer more under the new CHT proposals, a point which you made but I guess I see the glass half empty as opposed to half full when facing this issue.

As well, having lived in several provinces, I have seen how, lacking federal oversight, the system from province to province becomes increasingly variable with some provinces electing to head toward a two tier or user pays system as Alberta did under Ralph Klein. I am very concerned that this is the direction that the Harper government is heading, particularly since Mr. Harper has repeatedly stated that a two tier system is in Canada's best interest, a concept that is not allowed under current legislation.

As I noted, if the Federal government wants to cut their CHT transfers to the provinces to cut their overall expenditures, I have no problem. What they must do in that case, is offer a cut in personal taxes to offset their declining responsibility to Canadians. In turn, the provinces are more than likely to have to raise taxes to cover their shortfalls, meaning that taxpayers will be no further ahead....but at least they will be no further behind.

I see you concern over the possibility that in the end we might just be stuck with more taxes on both ends...

...My thought hinges on the possibility that what the fed does not fund will not be taxed federally. (which is how a confederationist likes to see this country). But I guess a likely equal possibility is a larger federal military expense, and still the provinces having to make up the short-fall in health-care.

Any money the feds save on health care will be spent on something else. The provinces will have to eat the increased health care costs. Along with all other costs the feds keep offloading. Provinces in turn offload onto the municipalities. Our cities need a new deal big time. Perhaps we need a few more provinces? Vancouver Island; Greater Vancouver, Greater Toronto?Health care cost keeps rising because of increased bureaucracy and because innovations are incresingly more expensive than the technologies they replace. At some point we will have to play God. In a totally private health care system, personal money plays God. You are rich (like Cain) you live. Poor, you die. In a public health care system, bureaucrats make the decisions based on tax dollars instead of personal money. We can be a long way from that but it will happen.

Maybe it's about everyone paying their fair share ie: a progressive tax rate. Obviously this may not be everyone's idea of fair but it is what built this country and most of it's infrastructure and government programs.

I have been surfing online greater than three hours these days, yet I never discovered any attention-grabbing article like yours. It’s pretty price enough for me. Personally, if all website owners and bloggers made good content as you did, the web shall be a lot more useful than ever before.Healthcare business process outsourcing

Subscribe To

About Me

I have been an avid follower of the world's political and economic scene since the great gold rush of 1979 - 1980 when it seemed that the world's economic system was on the verge of collapse. I am most concerned about the mounting level of government debt and the lack of political will to solve the problem. Actions need to be taken sooner rather than later when demographic issues will make solutions far more difficult. As a geoscientist, I am also concerned about the world's energy future; as we reach peak cheap oil, we need to find viable long-term solutions to what will ultimately become a supply-demand imbalance.